From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McAlister v. State

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
Jan 10, 2019
No. 02-18-00121-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 10, 2019)

Summary

employing same procedure

Summary of this case from Williams v. State

Opinion

No. 02-18-00121-CR

01-10-2019

TIMOTHY DEAN MCALISTER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS


On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1488130 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Pittman and Birdwell, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Timothy Dean McAlister appeals his conviction and his 180-day suspended sentence for driving while intoxicated while having an open container of alcohol. After McAlister filed his notice of appeal with assistance of retained counsel, his counsel withdrew. Although McAlister requested appointed counsel, the trial court found that he was not indigent and denied that request. McAlister proceeded pro se. We received a clerk's record, but we did not receive a reporter's record because McAlister did not pay for it.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a), (c) (West Supp. 2018). The trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed McAlister on community supervision.

On June 29, 2018, we sent a letter to McAlister to inform him that his brief would be due on August 13, 2018. McAlister did not file a brief. On September 11, 2018, we issued an order stating that McAlister had not filed his brief and informing him that we could consider his appeal without briefs unless before September 21, 2018, he filed a motion reasonably explaining his failure to file a brief. McAlister never filed such a motion.

The trial court has held a hearing in which the court determined that McAlister desires to prosecute his appeal and that he is not indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). McAlister has not made necessary arrangements for filing a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Accordingly, we will consider this appeal without briefs. See id.

We have reviewed the clerk's record and have not discerned any unassigned fundamental error. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.; Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Nichols v. State, No. 02-16-00150-CR, 2017 WL 4974774, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 2, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: January 10, 2019


Summaries of

McAlister v. State

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
Jan 10, 2019
No. 02-18-00121-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 10, 2019)

employing same procedure

Summary of this case from Williams v. State
Case details for

McAlister v. State

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY DEAN MCALISTER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Court:Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

Date published: Jan 10, 2019

Citations

No. 02-18-00121-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 10, 2019)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

We have reviewed the appellate record and have not discerned any unassigned fundamental error. SeeSavage ,…

Bonales v. State

If this were an appeal in which the appellant had merely not filed his brief and the trial court had not…